![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Looking for a pair of bookshelf speakers
- Thread starter Kueller
- Start date
HeavensCloud
Oswego, not shitty as Buffalo
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2008
- Messages
- 7,674
I think they were talking about Boonie, not you...
B00nie
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2012
- Messages
- 9,327
LOL if you think that basic design principles are some crazy shit then you should remain quiet. Learn a little, then write. Stop the straw man arguments and tell me what do you find strange in the well known phenomenon of two emitters canceling eachothers out when the distance between emitters is above half wavelength?
Read this, try to understand it and then come back again: http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/comb-filtering
Last edited:
Personally I find Boonie's posts a breath of fresh air, I find a very large percentage of the audiophile industry to be full of deluded dorks that spend way too much money on snake oil and have no concept of audio engineering or the placebo effect.
I have no interest in what gear he has ... maybe he has beats headphones because he likes the color ... i don't care
What I care is about is his posts. So far they are quite welcome by bringing to the table factual technical information.
If what he posted is indeed malarkey ... please do point out the technical flaws in his posts ... that would actually be quite helpful
Personally I find Boonie's posts a breath of fresh air, I find a very large percentage of the audiophile industry to be full of deluded dorks that spend way too much money on snake oil and have no concept of audio engineering or the placebo effect.
I have no interest in what gear he has ... maybe he has beats headphones because he likes the color ... i don't care
What I care is about is his posts. So far they are quite welcome by bringing to the table factual technical information.
If what he posted is indeed malarkey ... please do point out the technical flaws in his posts ... that would actually be quite helpful
Last edited:
Hyperbole much?
As I said, I like the technical aspects of his posts. To me it seems that he knows what he is talking about however I'm not an audio engineer so I could be wrong about that.
If indeed what he posts is incorrect it would be nice to see technical counter arguments rather than personal attacks
Wow dude you really need to do research on audio reproduction if you think B00nie is full of shit on comb filtering. You denied BASIC facts about bass reproduction in another thread. It's fine not to know but to call others out for bullshit when you have absolutely no facts is nuts. I suggest you hang out at AVSforum or countless other audio websites and read more if you want to know and talk about audio because "you know nothing Jon Snow".
Suggested reading:
Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms by Floyd Toole
http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Acoustics-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers/dp/0240520092
The Audio Expert: Everything You Need to Know About Audio by Ethan Winer
http://www.amazon.com/The-Audio-Expert-Everything-About/dp/0240821009
B00nie states facts and people get butthurt.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
I hangout a lot on Avsforum, I ran sound for my high school auditorium, and have read a few books about sound. I am by no means an expert about sound, I still seek out advice from others often. But I couldn't find anything wrong with what B00nie was saying. He actually stated stuff way above what I know. He didn't start off as arrogant but he told his facts in a very abrasive way... Uncalled for but I suppose it happens... Then again many others were the same way.
At the end of the day, hearing is subjective. I may think studio 100s sound amazing while someone may think they are terrible. I think as long as they are happy then that is all that matters. Even if their system is technically flawed,
Ok, stepping off soap box,
At the end of the day, hearing is subjective. I may think studio 100s sound amazing while someone may think they are terrible. I think as long as they are happy then that is all that matters. Even if their system is technically flawed,
Ok, stepping off soap box,
Last edited:
Neutrino: I don't consider myself a true audiophile. I have a pretty decent 2-channel set-up & a semi-decent HT system. When it came to 2.1 PC computer speakers, I had a Cambridge Soundworks unit that I owned for 7 years (paid $349.00 for it back then) I thought it was really that good & it isn't bad in terms of a "boxed/pre-made" purchase.
Let me tell you a quick story. Initially, Venomous & I exchanged a few words & as I wouldn't give in to for my love of my Cambridge Soundworks 2.1 ideology. Then, I decided to dust-off an older Marantz receiver sitting in my basement & listen to him. Bought a pair of decent bookshelf speakers & then a solid subwoofer. Guess what? He was right! I was sold. I couldn't believe I held on to my thoughts (& defended them) until I listened to what was in front of me. Here's the punch line....Venomous was a complete "gentleman" about the whole scenario! Here's where the difference lies ,Venomous was trying to help me out & didn't sit on his "High-Horse" Bottom line is presentation. If you sit in a an Ivory Tower & semi-preach, then the masses could have an insurrection. Get my meaning?
I know I wasn't apart of this but I have to disagree. The second part of your first post was anything but a "gentleman" IMO. You say your system is perfect. Maybe to you but I bet the JBL LSR308s would sound better or at least, be more accurate, but since your system is so perfect. Would you mind posting a frq response graph? What do you use to EQ your system? Being it sounds perfect, I am interested in learning about it. I don't remember ever reading B00nie stating he knew everything about speakers. He simply stated the flaws in other peoples post.
I don't think Venomous was a gentleman at all either, at least in this thread. Saying B00nie doesn't know shit when he backed up most of what he said was far from polite...
As for spaceman, his system would have comb issues. You can read about people saying don't do it all over the place on Avsforum with using two bookshelfs as center channels. The waves begin to cancel each other out... B00nie, is it a waterfall graph that shows this or would a standard frq response show it? I honestly don't know... I sold my omnimic awhile back.
Last edited:
B00nie
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2012
- Messages
- 9,327
Both will show it but the regular amplitude graph will show it better, waterfall graphs are best suited to figure out time related events, cabinet resonances etc.
I don't think you'll find many graphs on multiple speakers because like I said, it's generally considered a bad practice. Multiple speakers CAN work for you but then you'd want to build a line array that becomes a line source. If you just slap a bunch of speakers playing in same room at the same time the end result is not going to be accurate if the signal of each speaker is not delayed to compensate for the difference in distance. This is why professionally made concerts can have multiple speaker arrays and still sound good, the audio engineer has used line delays that match the measured distances between the speakers.
The biggest problem with 'regular' measurements is that due to the horrible problems most regular speakers have in the higher audio band, most amplitude graphs are smoothed to 1/3 oct so they don't show the huge spiking otherwise apparent in the graphs. Those graphs you see with regular speakers (especially room graphs) that show just a smooth line are totally misleading. In reality they show a big saw tooth. Very directive speakers that are well designed and built do not get all sawtoothy (or more precisely the scale of the sawtooth is typically much reduced and matching anechoic measurements), unfortunately this qualitative difference is hidden in the typical smoothed graphs.
Compare the middle graph (smoothed) to the unsmoothed graph. Those show a very different story don't they?
Last edited:
B00nie
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2012
- Messages
- 9,327
To all the participants: Sorry if some of my posts have seemed abrasive.
I have tried to correct misconceptions and false information in the posts. Some people have been offended by that, claiming things as 'my only true way (tm)' etc.
But as that Carl Sagan meme fittingly said, scientific things are true and can be proven whether you believe it or not.
I have no trouble discussing with anyone who can prove me wrong by showing some data to back the statement up for example, but when people call me an idiot and I *know* positively that they are talking about a subject they don't have the slightest idea about, I sometimes allow myself to get provoked.
I am passionate about audio and have spent years researching audio reproduction theory as a hobby. I know that many people will not realize the degradation that happens when you place two speakers on top of eachothers, they may feel that the sound is improved as the bass frequencies of the two speakers get coupled and they get more bass and sensitivity out of the system.
So sorry, I understand fully how it may feel that two speakers is better than one, but the truth is that you would get a much better sound by using just one pair of _good_ speakers instead of stacking up many cheap ones.
I have traveled that path myself. I remember the time when I also stacked speakers and thought it was cool. But as I progressed in the hobby, spent time listening to high-end products and started to analyze what was wrong in my own setups, knowledge starts to develop. The process took years with me, because I'm a slow learner - or it just takes that long.
I have tried to correct misconceptions and false information in the posts. Some people have been offended by that, claiming things as 'my only true way (tm)' etc.
But as that Carl Sagan meme fittingly said, scientific things are true and can be proven whether you believe it or not.
I have no trouble discussing with anyone who can prove me wrong by showing some data to back the statement up for example, but when people call me an idiot and I *know* positively that they are talking about a subject they don't have the slightest idea about, I sometimes allow myself to get provoked.
I am passionate about audio and have spent years researching audio reproduction theory as a hobby. I know that many people will not realize the degradation that happens when you place two speakers on top of eachothers, they may feel that the sound is improved as the bass frequencies of the two speakers get coupled and they get more bass and sensitivity out of the system.
So sorry, I understand fully how it may feel that two speakers is better than one, but the truth is that you would get a much better sound by using just one pair of _good_ speakers instead of stacking up many cheap ones.
I have traveled that path myself. I remember the time when I also stacked speakers and thought it was cool. But as I progressed in the hobby, spent time listening to high-end products and started to analyze what was wrong in my own setups, knowledge starts to develop. The process took years with me, because I'm a slow learner - or it just takes that long.
B00nie
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2012
- Messages
- 9,327
Like I said drop the strawman arguments. I know your kind, even if I will post my system you'll find excuses it's copied from somewhere yada yada yada.
I've found that the only effective way to deal with the likes of you is to stop your strawman arguments to their tracks. If you have nothing else to add to this subject than wanting to see my own setup then the discussion has ended for you right there.
Besides if I showed you my audio setup you'd probably just be left wondering where the speakers are. Just perforrated metal sheets lol.
Last edited:
Both will show it but the regular amplitude graph will show it better, waterfall graphs are best suited to figure out time related events, cabinet resonances etc.
I don't think you'll find many graphs on multiple speakers because like I said, it's generally considered a bad practice. Multiple speakers CAN work for you but then you'd want to build a line array that becomes a line source. If you just slap a bunch of speakers playing in same room at the same time the end result is not going to be accurate if the signal of each speaker is not delayed to compensate for the difference in distance. This is why professionally made concerts can have multiple speaker arrays and still sound good, the audio engineer has used line delays that match the measured distances between the speakers.
The biggest problem with 'regular' measurements is that due to the horrible problems most regular speakers have in the higher audio band, most amplitude graphs are smoothed to 1/3 oct so they don't show the huge spiking otherwise apparent in the graphs. Those graphs you see with regular speakers (especially room graphs) that show just a smooth line are totally misleading. In reality they show a big saw tooth. Very directive speakers that are well designed and built do not get all sawtoothy (or more precisely the scale of the sawtooth is typically much reduced and matching anechoic measurements), unfortunately this qualitative difference is hidden in the typical smoothed graphs.
Compare the middle graph (smoothed) to the unsmoothed graph. Those show a very different story don't they?
Going slightly off topic here... That is very interesting.
1. I thought when people measure their home theaters like on Avsforum, they can use something like a Omnimic or REW etc then they use a miniDSP/2496 etc. to attempt to fix the nulls and peaks? When they do that, don't they generally play all of the speakers at the same time? I know Omnimic released a 5.1 disk... Can't you change the smoothing you get in the softwares?
2. Interesting as you talk about about the line arrays and time alignment. We had a terrible system in our auditorium, it has rooms on the back side that can be shut off if need be or used for more seating, with them it holds 1,250 people.Anyways, the speakers for the rooms where mounted in the ceiling behind the audience and they weren't time aligned. Creating a muddy delayed sound. With the new system we are getting this year, we are getting a 3 part line array across the front and then another line of speakers in front of the audience in the lecture rooms that will be time aligned. Should be a major upgrade.
3. With that graph, couldn't you correct some of those nulls and peaks with EQing or acoustic treatments?
Thanks!
B00nie
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2012
- Messages
- 9,327
Room correction done in higher frequencies has diminishing returns. Most of those peaks in the graphs result from room reflections. While you would tihnk that it would be a simple to simply apply reverse eq to all the peaks and everything would be fixed but it doesn't work that way as any correction would produce a different set of reflections and peaks. Additionally even if you managed to have the response flat in 1 spot, move your head 1 inch and the eq is wrong already. What you can do is correct the broad impressions in the smoothed graph which is like recreating the Mona Lisa with lego blocks. You can reorder them and choose a better color but it'st still going to be made of blocks. The third major obstacle against too much EQ is that traditional dynamic speakers respond badly to EQ. They're not responsive enough. ESL panels then again with their near weightless membranes and near zero distortion push&pull motor respond much better to eq. A highly directive speaker also minimizes any room reflections so you hear mostly pure sound from the speaker instead of a mixup of reflections. The early wall, floor and ceiling reflections cause the same 'crazy comb filter' effect discussed earlyer when out of phase reflections get combined with direct sound.
Yep I'm guessing the difference will be jaw dropping (if they do their measurements right).
Yes as long as you keep in mind the limitations I mentioned earlyer. Acoustic treatment is the preferred way to battle high frequency problems but due to material properties the absorbant materials used require huge quantities in order to be effective on lower frequencies (several feet of wool for example).
The graph I borrowed online was of a dipole speaker which by itself means the dips and peaks are LESS apparent than in a regular boxed speaker!
But what the graphs tell in this case is that whoever made the speaker hasn't applied proper dipole correction (one must negate the natural 6db/oct roll-off of dipoles by applying a reverse eq slope). Also the graph shows that his setup is totally off balance especially if his tweeters are also directive. He would need to apply dipole correction and also increase the level of bass so that the response would resemble the ideal power response of a regular speaker. This is because the direct response is what you get in directive speakers instead of the summed mashup of reflections regular boxed speakers give you.If you go the way of room treatment it has to be designed very carefully because you don't want to just overdamp your high register and get left with muddy overpowered bass. Some problems can be just eq:d out but some can't. Listening rooms in basements and concrete walled rooms sometimes require mass resonators the size of whole walls in order to remove delayed bass energies typical for this sort of rooms.
Yup...Let's see it BOOnie!
InternationalHat
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2004
- Messages
- 1,481
I generally agree with most of what B00nie's saying, but it's much farther than I would go... especially when we're talking low-mid fi gear here.
Live sound has to deal with room reflections as well. I personally don't like how music sounds in a totally dead room, it's like being in a recording booth and there's a disconnect between brain expecting reflections due to your eyes seeing a room and none of that happening. I don't really enjoy highly directional speakers as well although I've only really listened to a few that had other flaws.
If you're monitoring for recording purposes it's cool to try to get really close to that totally neutral sound but you can get into Asperger's-land fast by chasing audiophilia measuring all your drivers' harmonic distortions, your DAC's f/r, etc.
At a certain point you surpass what the engineers were using when recording and then what are you chasing? Some sort of mythical totally dead room that can reproduce a stereo recording in its virtual soundspace without any coloration? If so and you can deal with the imaging changes, just go with headphones. I'm not really a headphones guy... maybe this is why.
I like acoustic treatment to smooth out harshness and dramatically uneven response, but I like how speakers can fill up a room with music and sound and create a live space. It sounds like we're veering away from that now which for monitoring playback is OK but I don't think that ought to be the goal of hi-fi. Maybe we disagree there.
Live sound has to deal with room reflections as well. I personally don't like how music sounds in a totally dead room, it's like being in a recording booth and there's a disconnect between brain expecting reflections due to your eyes seeing a room and none of that happening. I don't really enjoy highly directional speakers as well although I've only really listened to a few that had other flaws.
If you're monitoring for recording purposes it's cool to try to get really close to that totally neutral sound but you can get into Asperger's-land fast by chasing audiophilia measuring all your drivers' harmonic distortions, your DAC's f/r, etc.
At a certain point you surpass what the engineers were using when recording and then what are you chasing? Some sort of mythical totally dead room that can reproduce a stereo recording in its virtual soundspace without any coloration? If so and you can deal with the imaging changes, just go with headphones. I'm not really a headphones guy... maybe this is why.
I like acoustic treatment to smooth out harshness and dramatically uneven response, but I like how speakers can fill up a room with music and sound and create a live space. It sounds like we're veering away from that now which for monitoring playback is OK but I don't think that ought to be the goal of hi-fi. Maybe we disagree there.
InternationalHat
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2004
- Messages
- 1,481
This is a weird dick measuring contest and it doesn't really matter what he owns. He may have access to tons of equipment that's not his at work or elsewhere.
The guy could be reincarnated Jim Thiel and have a pair of 1970's realistic plywood specials at home for himself.
B00nie
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2012
- Messages
- 9,327
It's a common misconception to think that a speaker needs the room reflections to sound good. This is totally false, at least in the case of controlled directive speakers which are designed to have a proper balance without the room reflections. Regular speakers start to sound weird in a very damped room because their designer has balanced them to sound proper in a regular room that has a lot of reverbation. Once you remove that the balance is off. Coincidentally this is also the reason why near-field monitors often have problems when used far field and vice versa. In near field you don't get the reverbant mess but direct sound. The balance needs to be different compared to far field (and without extensive directivity). When you don't excite room reflections all that is left is the reflections recorded in the recording. So if you have a properly made recording it will sound awesome. Artificial studio recordings may then again sound dull and lifeless as well as even life recordings that were done without capturing the real ambience of the show i.e. direct micing. A simple stereomicrophone recording can sound incredible, you feel as if you were inside the performance.
Headphones can produce a very accurate sound but it has a few major problems. First of all the angle at which the sound hits the ear doesn't match the real performance. Even bigger problem is how brain handles sound psychoacoustically. Headphones that do not have head tracking will lose their sound stage and the sound is centered between your ears. A major obstacle that totally defeats the illusion of a performance for most people, me included.
Once you add head tracking so that the sound appears to remain stationary when you move your head as opposed to moving around with your head, the brain interprets a direction for the sound and like magic you get a normal soundstage. Once you remove the head tracking the illusion is gone with a couple moves of head.
http://www.dspeaker.com/en/products/headspeaker.shtml
I also personally have big issues with wear comfort, I haven't found yet headphones that wouldn't start to bother me after a longer listening. I have a sensitive scalp.
Last edited:
B00nie
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2012
- Messages
- 9,327
Heh I've been on this path before. When I will post a picture or pictures, they'll claim it's not my system and I copied the pictures somewhere. Totally futile, they're just trolling.
Yeah, gotta be honest, I have no idea what showing his gear will accomplish.
To address a more humorous 2nd point:
That was Neil D. Tyson (it was his quote) in that gif, not Carl Sagan. LOL.
B00nie
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2012
- Messages
- 9,327
True, Dr. Tyson is a big fan of Carl Sagan though.
HeavensCloud
Oswego, not shitty as Buffalo
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2008
- Messages
- 7,674
So put a picture up with your handle in it...
B00nie
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2012
- Messages
- 9,327
Heh, I can post pictures of my electrostatic speakers but 100% garanteed they're going to be met with denial. Like I said this is not the first time I've been straw man attacked, the pattern is always the same. The opposition doesn't have any arguments because they just don't know about the subject, so what do they do? They try to undermine my credibility with the totally false notion of 'being only as good as your own equipment' or making totally illogical and unreasonable arguments like I would have had to personally hear each speaker we're discussing about here to be able to say something lol.
What they're doing essentially is trying to hide their own embarrasment and this is also why they'll never believe any picture I'm going to post.
Anyhow, here's one of my electrostatic rear channels from behind:
Last edited:
For what it's worth, I don't disagree with you and have gotten into similar arguments before in other places, I've just given up pissing into the proverbial wind by arguing with them.
My tendency is to see if anyone's given good advice, if they have give it a "I agree with this" and then move on. If nobody's given what I feel is good advice, I tell the OP what I think and then abandon ship on the thread.
Perhaps I'm too passive. I dunno
I don't have the money for crazy systems myself so I'm on a meager pair of BX5a's that aren't even optimally arranged, but it's the best I can do with my available money and the space I have to work with.
Hell yeah, the cabinet reminds me of the 90's ML's kinda. I think I recall you saying they're DIY and active. When my warranty runs out on my ML ESL's I'm thinking of converting them to active, at least my front 2 for music but I'd really like to get into a new place before I do that then I can go IB with the subs.
B00nie
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2012
- Messages
- 9,327
Hell yeah, the cabinet reminds me of the 90's ML's kinda. I think I recall you saying they're DIY and active. When my warranty runs out on my ML ESL's I'm thinking of converting them to active, at least my front 2 for music but I'd really like to get into a new place before I do that then I can go IB with the subs.
Yes, these are older hybrid builds. I was never completely satisfied to them which is why they're now working as effect channels. They were not directive enough for my taste. My main ESLs are 200cm x 50cm barn doors, playing full range with subwoofers assisting. When the ESL gets this big it becomes very difficult load for the amplifier but on the other hand it plays good amounts of bass all by itself. The larger panels give an extremely clean and tight mid-bass (naturally they're active with a shelving equalizer that corrects the bass rollout). I run them at 4000V bias, going higher than that starts to produce too much arcing.
I'd love to see a build log if you have one. One day I'd like to build my own but it probably won't happen. You could probably make some good money replacing the panels on ML's since they want ridiculous prices on replacements panels now.
All he is saying is that it's the wrong application. That's fine if you like it and it works for you. The problem is some of you are taking it personally. It's like "I like bookshelf speakers for PC use, B00nie doesn't think it's right, therefore B00nie doesn't think I'm right... How dare he?!" You see this sort of thing all the time with stuff like Coke/Pepsi, Ford/Chevy, Xbox/Playstation, etc... People identify with choices they make as personal on things that shouldn't be. Do bookshelf speakers for PC use identify you as a person? Probably not, so stop taking it personally. Also ever thought of just ignoring the posts or forum members you don't like?
Last edited:
dragonageinquisition
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2014
- Messages
- 601
You can suspect whatever you want and it won't change the facts lol.
What did you use for measurements and what sort of room correction do you apply to the problem area that is the crossover frequency in vertical plane? Or did you skip or fail to understand anything from my text? I'll give you the benefit of a doubt with the Dynaudio and interchangeability with nearfield monitors. That would be a bit odd though since general design requirements are different for near field monitors and bookshelf/stand speakers. That being said, if you found one exception to the rule it makes no difference. The OP probably will have some other brand of bookshelf.
Edit: The Dynaudio C1 does indeed seem to be designed more as a near-field monitor than a bookshelf. It's near-field and anechoic measurements are excellent but its room response is pretty grim to look at (source: Stereophile review of 2008):
The Stereophile reviewer actually verified exactly what I was talking about - the speaker that is designed to work well in near field does not necessarily have the correct balance in far-field anymore and vice versa.
You trolling bro? First you say Dynaudio C1s sound like $50 logicraps in nearfield, now you claim some random untreated room measurements in a random room tells you something about the speakers? If you've seen any Stereophile review you know their room measurements look terrible because they do a addendum living room measurement. No speaker is going to sound perfectly linear in every room due to room nodes, that's why room correction exists.
Last edited:
B00nie
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2012
- Messages
- 9,327
You trolling bro? First you say Dynaudio C1s sound like $50 logicraps in nearfield, now you claim some random untreated room measurements in a random room tells you something about the speakers? If you've seen any Stereophile review you know their room measurements look terrible because they do a addendum living room measurement. No speaker is going to sound perfectly linear in every room due to room nodes, that's why room correction exists.
Better reading comprehension please. I said that even though bookshelfs will usually have major problems in near field, they'll still sound better than 50 dollar logicraps and this is why you might make the mistake of thinking they're well suited for the job. This isn't the truth with the exception of the Dynaudios it seems, they are actually near field monitors, not bookshelfs! This is apparent from the graph you sent, this is valid only with near field using your speakers. Remember also that because your Dynaudios probably use 12db/oct Butterworth crossovers, they're literally gimped in vertical angles. If you don't listen them on-axis vertically their balance is again off, not what your graph says even in near field!
The Stereophile room measurement is exactly what you get when you listen in a real life scenario outside the nearfield. If you do room correction at higher frequencies, the end result will not be good because the direct radiated sound from the speaker will not be balanced anymore. You're trading a weakness to even bigger weakness by attempting to room correct on higher frequencies.
This is why most room correction softwares and hardwares do not even attempt to correct high frequencies, only the lowest octaves. It's considered a bad practice, again.
The only true way of getting really accurate audio reproduction in a room is to eliminate the reverbation so that the direct radiated sound from the speaker is mostly what you hear and your overall sound will have the natural balance of the speakers sound, not the other way around. This can be done by professional room treatment or using speakers with controlled directivity, or both. Edit: and by listening in near field naturally! Room correction is only applicable to low frequency room modes, down there your ear no longer recognizes which part of the sound is direct early sound and which delayed reflections. In near field, 'room correction' can actually correct balance problems in the direct sound so there it may be useful. Once you get to far field and get the reverbation, room correction on higher frequencies loses its practicality.
Imagine this scenario: You have a group of singers singing in the room. It sounds natural, right? Now, put that room inside a canyon or a large industrial hall. Go to listen to the other end of that canyon/hall. Does it still sound natural to you? No? Why? Because the ambient reflections of your canyon/hall have mixed up the sound you _wanted_ to hear, i.e. the people singing in the room. Just like your own room mixes up the direct sound of the speakers. Stupendously simplified, this is the difference of an accurate speaker and a regular one.
When talking about bass correction, for this same phenomenon that makes it feasible you can't locate the source of low audio in the room also. You just hear it, not the exact direction from it's coming from.
In your case the Dynaudio C1:s will sound great in near field but when placed far field they're only average at best and downright horrible considering their price. They do not deploy any measures to control the directivity of the tweeter and the bass (immediately apparent from the lack of waveguides and/or resistance ports). That's why the C1 can be only balanced for 1 use scenario at a time. It either works in near field good or it works far field average when room corrected. When without room correction I'd consider it poor.
Remember that the stereophile measurements are heavily smoothed also so you don't see the huge comb filtering your speakers have in far field. Good speakers lack that even at far field and that's why they reveal bad recordings from good ones - it's the first time you actually listen to what's recorded, not the mumbo jumbo your room creates.
As Tch0rt says, if you're happy with what you got now, fine. That doesn't mean you're doing it right however! Like I said earlyer, adding a second pair of el-cheapo speakers (as in the other writers case) on top of the other one may feel like an immediate improvement in overall sound. You get more bass extension, you get more overall sound, the second pair may even correct the balance of the first one if you're lucky. The increased bass driver surface area will improve dynamics and directivity in lower frequencies. Heck the amp may even give more power if you connect them parallel so that they're seen as 4 ohm load instead of 8 ohm.
But you trade that off to comb filtering and messed up time/spatial information in the sound. If you would compare those stacked speakers with 1 properly made one you'd immediately recognize an ear shattering difference in accuracy and life-likeness.
Last edited: